The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Figures & data

Table 1. Risks associated with transformation processes (Blythe et al. 2018) and some examples for food systems in the Global South.

Transformation risks to avoid	Some examples in Global South food systems
Risk 1: Transformation that risks shifting the burden of response onto vulnerable parties	Establishment of protected areas that involves excluding smallholder food producers from accessing resources they rely on for their livelihoods. Promoting adaptation strategies that are costlier for smallholder producers e.g. costly restoration or infrastructure programs. (see Anaya and Espírito-Santo 2018 for detailed discussion)
Risk 2: Transformation that may be used to justify business-as-usual	Unsustainable intensification and industrialisation of food production justified on the basis of food security which reproduces long standing patterns of large scale producers consolidating control while smallholders lose livelihoods, lose control of resources, face decreasing incomes, and face reduced life quality. (see Patel 2012 for detailed discussion)
Risk 3: Transformation that pays insufficient attention to social differentiation	Framing agriculture as one category of production that generates environmental externalities without foregrounding the differences in responsibility between small scale and large scale producers; or highlighting aggregated economic benefits from transformative technological changes (e.g. Green Revolution in the 1970s) without foregrounding how the benefits are disproportionately captured by large scale players while small scale actors lose out. This also plays out when differences across social groups within countries are missed and panacea policies that are not adaptable to local contexts are applied. (see Loos et al. 2014 for detailed discussion)
Risk 4: Transformation that excludes the possibility of non-transformation or resistance	Promotion of costly technologies that intensify food production and digitalisation as ‘the’ pathway for transforming towards sustainable food systems while not attending to multiple pathways and plural alternatives. (see Prause et al. 2021 for detailed discussion)
Risk 5: Transformation that does not sufficiently engage with issues arising from power and politics	Asymmetric power relations enable rich and influential actors to lobby for greater control over production resources and trading processes, have a stronger voice in legislating policies and setting transformation trajectory in a way that advances their interests rather than prioritising and tackling food insecurity, malnutrition, poverty, and environmental degradation among the most marginalised groups in a population. (see Whitfield et al. 2021 for detailed discussion)

Table 2. General types of institutions that may influence food systems.

Institutions	Descriptions	Examples
Formal institutions	These are fomally written or codified rules such as laws and regulations, and agreements such as plans and contracts that are collectively and legally binding. Accountability for the enforcement of these institutions is typically the jurisdiction of government. (Abson et al. 2017)	International laws, bi-lateral or multilateral country agreements, national laws, local regulations, legally recognised property rights
Informal institutions	These are collectively held and implicitly learned customs, taboos, codes of conduct, informal conventions, and social norms. They are considered ‘the normal way of doing things’ which tend to remain unquestioned for centuries. They are also deeply embedded in religion or culture. (Abson et al. 2017)	Customary laws on land access, customary property rights, customary inheritance practices, intersectional gender norms
Hybrid institutional arrangements	Collaborative governance that goes beyond co-existence or competition between governance structures and involves the merging of different types of governance arrangements. Includes reformist and alternative orientations. (Clément 2019)	Collaborative state-community approaches
Organisations	There are varying views on this. Some view organisations as entities that cannot be considered as institutions. Others view organisations as consisting of a bundle of rules which make organisations a type of institution. We adopt the latter view. Organisations may also be formal or informal. (Hodgson 2006)	Community groups, local associations, cooperatives, state organisations, private firms

Figure 1. (a) A common view of the landscape in southwestern Ethiopia where the food system largely relies on diversified smallholder farming systems involving the production of various food and cash crops. (b) A small scale fisher in the northern part of the Philippines is unfurling fish nets in an estuary leading to Manila Bay. (c) An irrigation canal along some of the dried brackish water earthen pond aquaculture in Indonesia.

Table 3. Transformation trends in the case studies.

Case studies	Past or ongoing transformation trends
Diversified smallholder farming in southwest Ethiopia	Increasing orientation towards export of local farming products particularly of the cash crop coffee; increasing adoption of sustainable intensification in the form of organic and mixed-crop farming
Aquatic food production in northern Philippines	Shift from most aquatic food coming from capture fisheries to more aquatic food being produced from aquaculture; past land use change from rice farms to aquaculture ponds due to saline water intrusion; ongoing conversion of land use from aquaculture to residential areas or commercial areas (e.g. airport complex) (Manlosa et al. 2021)
Brackish water pond aquaculture in Indonesia	Shift in land ownership rights leading to remote management of aquaculture ponds Weakening of Gotong Royong cultural norm

Blythe J, Silver J, Evans L, Armitage D, Bennett NJ, Moore M-L, Morrison TH, Brown K. 2018. The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode. 50(5):1206–1223. doi:10.1111/anti.12405.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anaya FC, Espírito-Santo MM. 2018. Protected areas and territorial exclusion of traditional communities. Ecol Soc. 23(1). doi:10.5751/ES-09850-230108.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Patel R. 2012. Stuffed and starved: the hidden battle for the world food system-revised and updated. Brooklyn, New York: Melville House.

 Google Scholar

Loos J, Abson DJ, Chappell MJ, Hanspach J, Mikulcak F, Tichit M, Fischer J. 2014. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front Ecol Environ. 12(6):356–361. doi:10.1890/130157.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prause L, Hackfort S, Lindgren M. 2021. Digitalization and the third food regime. Agric Human Values. 38(3):641–655. doi:10.1007/s10460-020-10161-2.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Whitfield S, Apgar M, Chabvuta C, Challinor A, Deering K, Dougill A, Gulzar A, Kalaba F, Lamanna C, Manyonga D, Naess LO. 2021. A framework for examining justice in food system transformations research. Nat Food. 2(6):383–385. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00304-x.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, Lang DJ. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio. 46(1):30–15. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clément CWY. 2019. Hybrid governance as rural development: market, state, and civil society in Correns, France. In: Peter Andrée, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe and Kristen Lowitt. Civil society and social movements in food system governance. United Kingdom: Routledge; pp. 183–200.

 Google Scholar

Hodgson GM. 2006. What are institutions? J Econ Issues. 40(1):1–25. doi:10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Manlosa AO, Hornidge A-K, Schlüter A. 2021. Institutions and institutional changes: aquatic food production in Central Luzon, Philippines. Reg Environ Change. 21(4):1–14. doi:10.1007/s10113-021-01853-4.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar